This just isn't true and also makes no sense. He did not cover up or intend to cover up the relationship and that is not the issue.
Excuse me? That is exactly what he did, until this whole thing came out.
This has certainly been made clear in many published sources subsequently.
He had not told his friends or family. He and his partner appear to have led a separate social life. I had not realised he was a Catholic. Now that I know that, as a former Catholic myself, I can well imagine exactly why he didn't want to be particularly open about his sexuality (if his family and background were anything like mine).
If he had been concerned about having to cover up his relationship then he would not have risked using tax payers money in the way that he did as this was always going to be a very weak link in any cover up attempt.
Logically you are correct, but it appears that that is exactly what he did do.
He has admitted he was foolish to expect to be able to cover it up, and naive, and frankly, if you think this whole thing is only about expenses and not about his sexuality, then I think you are being a bit naive Paul.
Even if he had been straight and had been open about seeing someone the result would still have been exactly the same.
Possibly, but then we are back to the probability (IMO) that had he had a heterosexual partner, he would not have felt the need for any cover-up. Even my old-fashioned, very traditional, very orthodox Catholic extended family can just about cope with heterosexual out-of-wedlock partners ("living in sin"). Gay partners would not be discussed with people like my Mum and seemingly not with Laws' Mum either.
Since my original posting, I have heard of something called a "co-habitation allowance" of £20,000 per year which he could have claimed had he been open about the relationship. Presumably also had it been a heterosexual relationship. Again, had it been the latter, I doubt if he would have had much hesitation in claiming that openly.
Nothing to do with his sexuality? Well, it seems that Julian Glover agrees with me:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/may/30/felled-shame-david-laws
Even so, Laws would have endured if he had not found his sexuality blasted into the public domain – the Telegraph running a blurred snatched photograph of his partner. Some people will dislike the argument that sexuality had anything to do with his downfall, as if gay men are asking to be excused from rules that apply to others. But Laws did not ask to be excused. He simply ended up in an awful mess. People do, sometimes.
(My emphasis)
On another tack, Polly Toynbee says that he was a bit dodgy over some other claims as well, so for someone in his position, he was skating on thin ice anyway.
On yet another tack, it has been argued that MPs like Laws should not have to answer questions about their private life when making claims at the taxpayers' expense. Several letters to the Guardian have made the point that benefit claimants are not spared extremely close scrutiny about their private lives, with examples being given of benefit snoopers checking the sleeping arrangements in shared houses, and generally spying on claimants. In addition, false claimants are liable to face a prison sentence. Laws has only had to sacrifice a well-paying and prestigious job (although he still has another well-paid and fairly prestigious job to fall back on, lucky chap), with the suggestion that "he will be back soon".
One of the letters said that Cameron should just have given Laws a week off to "make his peace with his Catholic guilt and his Mother".
And earlier article from Glover, before Laws actually resigned/was sacked:
The story of David Laws has an uncomfortable echo: the downfall of BP's former chief executive John Browne. Both men – for reasons their friends still don't understand – tangled themselves in entirely unnecessary efforts to hide their sexuality. Browne fell. Laws may survive – he deserves to – but this looks bad.
Both men once worked in the City – once very homophobic, only somewhat less so now – and caught the habit of not telling the truth about themselves. Both are extremely close to their mothers and Laws kept his life secret even from her, though she surely guessed. Both men are loners, Laws an ascetic puzzle even to his closest friends. Both men ended up in a mess.
(My emphasis)
Instead Laws fell in love with his landlord, the moment their relationship moved from affection to partnership perhaps less clear cut in their own minds than in cold print on the front of the Daily Telegraph. No doubt he persuaded himself that he was claiming way below the Commons maximum. No doubt he feared the consequences of changing the arrangement: would someone spot their relationship?
(my emphasis)
Of course there was nothing to fear. But the human brain does not always work like that. And it is not hard to guess why. His mother is Catholic. Laws had a Catholic education. The news broadcast this morning, which reported his situation, went on to cover the Archbishop of Canterbury's efforts to stop churches giving their blessing to gay partnerships. The world is less progressive than it sometimes seems from north London.
This is a scandal – if it is a scandal – caused by one man's inability to face up to his sexuality, not a desire to fiddle expenses. Whether he is now a credible face of public spending cuts is for the media, his party, and the prime minister to decide. I desperately hope he survives. I fear he won't.
(My emphasis)
And he didn't, of course. For now.
